True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

Okay, maybe I was just over-thinking it. TS (I'm going to stop including % because that now annoys me and confuses the issue of what the stat really is) is ultimately points per shot while also including FTAs. The artificial .44 or .475 in some cases that gets thrown in doesn't sit well with me, now that I recall its inclusion, too.

You'd have to ask Seth or the count to get a real clear explanation of the .44, but it is basically a way to quantify the extra free throws , and 1's, Tech's. Otherwise the FT part of the equation is overvalued. It is my understanding that those numbers are looked at periodically by the stat geeks and are still valid.

You tell me which guy gets the girl (wins games). The one who reads 20 books on dating and analyzes every possibility . . . or the guy who looks over the situation and uses his gut instincts?

Isn't this a false choice. The guy that wins the games in the NBA is the guy that has done the research and knows the correct strategy to apply. Instead of just guessing.

Not to say you cannot be a successful guesser. There are guys who just know how to play and can see the game around them naturally. The same thing is true about some coaches and GM's. But most guys, at least in the NBA, it appears, use stats to make their decision making process better.

Let me connect the dots for you. The point is, great stats, even if they are fairly broad don't mean the player is any good. Murphy has always had good or even great stats but he is no winner. On those stat stuffing JOb years, that benefited Granger as well, Murphy racked up big time stats. Yet he never has sniffed a playoff game as key contributor on any NBA team.

I think he might have seen the playoffs as a Laker, but he scored like 3ppg for them.

Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

Let me connect the dots for you. The point is, great stats, even if they are fairly broad don't mean the player is any good. Murphy has always had good or even great stats but he is no winner. On those stat stuffing JOb years, that benefited Granger as well, Murphy racked up big time stats. Yet he never has sniffed a playoff game as key contributor on any NBA team.

I think he might have seen the playoffs as a Laker, but he scored like 3ppg for them.

Or it just means there are more to the game of basketball than how well you shoot 3's and rebound the ball. You know, like defense.

Just because you don't want to try to understand something doesn't mean its not both simple and intuitive. If you don't want to know why something is computed the way it is, that's fine, but then resist from saying the stat isn't applicable.

And I'm not using simple to demean anybody, I expanded the equation using basic algebra and explained its relevance in terms of the rules of the NBA and a simple statistical principal.

Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

Just because you don't want to try to understand something doesn't mean its not both simple and intuitive. If you don't want to know why something is computed the way it is, that's fine, but then resist from saying the stat isn't applicable.

And I'm not using simple to demean anybody, I expanded the equation using basic algebra and explained its relevance in terms of the rules of the NBA and a simple statistical principal.

I probably went slightly over the top with satire on a couple posts in this thread, but I think what got me going were the two or three "at face value" comments.

I imagine there might be some interesting nuggets to gain from a stat that attempts to factor threes, FTs, and-1's, etc into a shooting percentage. I made As and Bs in calculus back in the day and could probably figure this TS thing out if I had the time and inclination. But I don't.

Last edited by McKeyFan; 11-05-2013 at 08:19 PM.

.

.

.

.

"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."

Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

Let me connect the dots for you. The point is, great stats, even if they are fairly broad don't mean the player is any good. Murphy has always had good or even great stats but he is no winner. On those stat stuffing JOb years, that benefited Granger as well, Murphy racked up big time stats. Yet he never has sniffed a playoff game as key contributor on any NBA team.

I think he might have seen the playoffs as a Laker, but he scored like 3ppg for them.

And let me connect the dots for you. No one said that Murphy is good. The stats are not saying that Murphy is good. The only thing that the stats say is that Murphy is an efficient shooter that can rebound the ball. That's it. I'll say it again.

Don't try to force statistics into contexts that they do not belong in. That is the definition of misinterpreting them.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

I probably went slightly over the top with sature on a couple posts in this thread, but I think what got me going were the two or three "at face value" comments.

I imagine there might be some interesting nuggets to gain from a stat that attempts to factor threes, FTs, and-1's, etc into a shooting percentage. I made As and Bs in calculus back in the day and could probably figure this TS thing out if I had the time and inclination. But I don't.

I am the one who made the "at face value" comments. If I'm right, the idiom "at face value" translates to "apparent value". In other words, it indicates that whatever is written "at face value" means exactly what it says. That's my point here.

TS% is exactly what it says. It is a measurement of scoring efficiency. That's what TS% is "at face value".

It is NOT a stat that measures how good a player is and it is NOT a stat that promotes the idea that teams should shoot more 3s. It just measures how efficient a player scores. That's it. That's what I mean by "at face value".

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

And let me connect the dots for you. No one said that Murphy is good. The stats are not saying that Murphy is good. The only thing that the stats say is that Murphy is an efficient shooter that can rebound the ball. That's it. I'll say it again.

Don't try to force statistics into contexts that they do not belong in. That is the definition of misinterpreting them.

Sorry, but Murphy is the poster child for stats lacking real-world value. On paper he looked great. If you want to build your house on that sand, go on.

Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

Without trying to interpret the stats through the application of the TS% metric for the purposes of gauging the significance of the stats it analyzes, why bother to even look at them in that way at all?

In other words, what would the purpose of the metric be if future decisions are not going to be based at least in part on the interpretation of the results of the metric?

Or, as some would put it, without proper context the TS% metric is possibly one of the least useful of the more easily understood advanced metrics in basketball. For me, it rivals the much debated +/- in terms of actual significance of understanding what actually occurred during the course of a given game or even a given season.

Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

Without trying to interpret the stats through the application of the TS% metric for the purposes of gauging the significance of the stats it analyzes, why bother to even look at them in that way at all?

In other words, what would the purpose of the metric be if future decisions are not going to be based at least in part on the interpretation of the results of the metric?

Or, as some would put it, without proper context the TS% metric is possibly one of the least useful of the more easily understood advanced metrics in basketball. For me, it rivals the much debated +/- in terms of actual significance of understanding what actually occurred during the course of a given game or even a given season.

The game was beggining so I made a pretty big mistake in my post. I used the word "interpret" instead of the word "misinterpret". That's a pretty big difference and I'm sorry about that mistake of mine.

BnG is trying to argue that the stats indicate that a high TS% and high rebounding numbers suddenly mean that someone is "great". He is not putting the stats in the proper context. He is simply misinterpreting them and skewes their meaning.

I'll say it once again.

High TS% + Lots of Rebounds =/= Great player.

High TS% + Lots of Rebounds = Efficient scorer that can rebound the ball.

There is a big difference between those two.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.